John's UK stint

[griff]

Michael Hagan in The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16164587%255E2722,00.html

...

Claims that Joey is devaluing the Australian jersey by putting club football ahead of a Test are very selective. If anyone has devalued the Australian jersey, the ARL has to stand up first.
Remember 2003 when it approved Darren Smith, then playing in the English league for St Helens, to be called into the Kangaroos side in front of players who chosen from the NRL to tour and were fit and keen to play?

What about the excessive demands they have put on our players and the diminishing of the prestige of what used to be a Kangaroos tour every four years by sending the Australian team away to Britain five times in six years: the 2000 World Cup, 2001 and 2003 Tests, and the 2004 and 2005 Tri-Nations series.

It used to be such a special ambition to be playing well enough in a Kangaroo year to experience a tour that may only come around twice in your career.

The ARL has pushed the players so hard, some have (and certainly many more have thought of it) turned their back on the Australian jersey because too tough a schedule has been set.

What about allowing Tonie Carroll to play for our major competitor, New Zealand, in the 2000 World Cup, then for Australia when the spirit of the "release" rule for the World Cup that year was for players to support the minor nations?

What about Ben Kennedy, who had effectively retired from international football, being allowed to play State of Origin for NSW with everyone knowing full well he wouldn't be available for this year's Tri-Nations?

Don't single Andrew Johns out when it comes to the right to wear the green and gold.

The other issue that has been brought up is the precedent it would set to "allow a player to put an English club in front of a Test match for Australia". Every situation should be treated on its merits. And I don't think this particular situation is likely to present itself again anyway.

...

The easiest way to close the "loophole" or avoid it happening again is to do what should have been done years ago in the best interests of the international game -- put the English and Australian grand finals on the same weekend.

The English league has apparently told the International Federation it is reluctant to bring its grand final forward two weeks to coincide with ours in 2008, meaning the World Cup might have to be turned into a pre-season competition. Who is running this game and who is really devaluing Test football?

...

It is up to the ARL and International Board to tighten the international scheduling by putting the English and Australian grand finals on the same day and eliminate the problem or ensure that players can't register at the 11th hour to help a club win a competition or avoid relegation as is the case now.
Surely what's best for the game is the English league getting a huge lift by Andrew being there, Newcastle and Australian fans getting the great benefit of Andrew being secured for an extra season in 2007, Andrew returning to the Test scene after a two-year absence and hopefully all three nations being close to full strength for the Tri-Nations series.

I don't really agree with his main argument, that they should allow Johns to miss a Test match to play a club game. But he does make some really good points.

The first one is that we are diminishing the prestige of internationals and making touring less special so much that people are retiring from the international game. Having had tours to England in 5 of the past 6 years is just ridiculous. Like in the old days, we have to make tours less often so they are more special and more sought after when they do come around.

The second one is the precedents in allowing people to continue to play Origin after they have declared they will retire from international football. And picking Darren Smith to play for Australia. How can they say to anyone now that they are ineligible because they play in England when they selected Smith?

The third one is why the hell aren't the Grand Finals on the same weekend? What the hell do Richard Lewis and David Gallop talk about at RLIF meetings, surely this should have been one of the top items on the agenda at meetings for the last few years? Aside from the current problems this causes, he correctly points out that a pre-season World Cup would be a disaster.

Discuss.

 

[League Freak™]

I wrote this on my web site at http://nospam49.iirl.net

Suggestions that the move by Johns to be "excused" from playing the opening Tri Series match will just degrade the Australian test jersey are laughable.

Let me get this straight.

So in 1995 the ARL decides it wont select players that have signed up to the new Super League competition. It goes on to not select the best possible team available, a team which does win the 1995 World Cup. Devaled....are you kidding me?

In 1997 TWO Australian teams play, with the ARL playing token matches against anyone thats not signed up to SL....and SL players taking part in a Test series against Great British. Devalued.....I don't think so Sally!

We let Tonie Carroll play in the 2000 World Cup for New Zealand, against us, then we say its OK because its ONLY a World Cup. Then we give him a Queensland jersey and we follow that up by giving him an Australian jersey. Devalued....NO!

Willie Mason, Lote Tuqiri, Petero Civoneceva.....all played in the 2000 World Cup for other teams. Then found themselves selected for Australia a short time late. Devalued......Not on your life!

Darren Smith walks in off the street in 2003 and is handed a Test spot my Chris Anderson. Devalued......you have to be kidding?

Karmichael Hunt, born in New Zealand, raised in New Zealand until he was 12, and having lived in Australia for as long as Adrian Morley is given the ARL's full blessing to turn his back in New Zealand and try to play for Queensland and Australia. Devalued......Me Finki No!

So Brad Thorn decides to go and play union. He decides he is a Kiwi after all and become an All Black. On his return to Rugby League....he is an Australian again and plays for Queensland. Devalued......of course not!

The hypocrisy would be stunning, but after a while, you come to expect this type of thing from the ARL.

The fact is Johns missing a single games would be a blow, but it would not even rate on the scale compared to the way that the games administrators have trashed the Australian jersey and test football in general over the last decade or so.

 

[Sun_Down]

Dont always agree with you LF, but that is a top article mate!

 

[League Freak™]

Dont always agree with you LF, but that is a top article mate!

One of the few things that does make me very angry is the way the ARL have cheapened the Australian jersey.

 

[griff]

That's true, but allowing Johns to miss a test to play for an English club will cheapen it more.

This is a line in the sand for them, and just because they haven't supported the international game in the past is no reason for damaging it more now.

I know there will be a lot of people at the ARL fervently hoping that Warrington don't make the GF so they won't have to make the decision.

 

[League Freak™]

What REALLY damaged the Test jersey.


Not having a player avalible for one game that hasnted played Test football in a few years anyway.

OR

Having Tonie Carroll in the Australian side playing against New Zealand.


People might not like Johns missing a game, but the fact is the man on the street saying "Carrol....whats he doing in there, he's a Kiwi" is a thousand times more damaging.

Johns loss is not great, but the addition of Carroll hurts the games credibility.

 

[griff]

He is widely regarded as one of the best players to ever lace on a boot, and agree with it or not, the highest profile RL player in the world. So of course his absence would harm the game's standing.

Carroll, Smith, tours to England way too often, meaningless one-off tests etc etc have all damaged the international game. But the loss of Johns would as well. Why continue to damage international RL any further?

 

[League Freak™]

Im not saying Johns loss doesnt hurt the international game.


I just think his loss up against the farce of selecting Kiwi's an Islands pales into insignificance.

 

[hutch]

but carroll isnt a kiwi, nor is thorn. they are aussies mate, been here from a very early age, all they know is australia, they grew up in australia, played junior footy in australia and consider themselves australian, hell they even say 'six' instead of 'sex'. the real issue is the stupid rule that allowed them to play for new zealand. and in thorns case, australia, then new zealand in union, and now possibly for australia again. why were they picked for new zealand when they are aussies, because they can be and they havnt broken any laws or rules when it comes to the rlif, which is ridiculous.

 

[League Freak™]

Both were born in New Zealand and both have represented for New Zealand.



Thats about as far from being Australian as you will find.

 

[screeny]

The ARL aren't soleley responsible. The RFL will have had a lot to do with the Roos heading over to England so much in the last few years. We've needed Australia to come here to get us out of our financial back hole - now we're out of it. Without Australia's heavier than normal presence we'd still be stuffed, so looking at it from a global-league-finances point of view the ARL haven't really had much choice.

Remember in 2001 Mo Londsay said that unless the ARL came over post 9/11 then the RFL was dead. The Kiwis just don't make as much money as the Roos, not even close in fact, while touring Australia with its weakling economy wouldn't have helped the RFL's bank balance one bit, on the contrary, a weak GB side getting slaughtered might have had the opposite effect, with poor crowds costing the tour (and the RFL/ARL) money.

So, in short, I am defending the ARL coz over the past few years RL has had no option: if the Roos hadn't toured annually we wouldn't be in the excellent position we are now in Britain.

 

[screeny]

The ARL aren't soleley responsible. The RFL will have had a lot to do with the Roos heading over to England so much in the last few years. We've needed Australia to come here to get us out of our financial back hole - now we're out of it. Without Australia's heavier than normal presence we'd still be stuffed, so looking at it from a global-league-finances point of view the ARL haven't really had much choice.

Remember in 2001 Mo Londsay said that unless the ARL came over post 9/11 then the RFL was dead. The Kiwis just don't make as much money as the Roos, not even close in fact, while touring Australia with its weakling economy wouldn't have helped the RFL's bank balance one bit, on the contrary, a weak GB side getting slaughtered might have had the opposite effect, with poor crowds costing the tour (and the RFL/ARL) money.

So, in short, I am defending the ARL coz over the past few years RL has had no option: if the Roos hadn't toured annually we wouldn't be in the excellent position we are now in Britain.

(Geoff Carr is still rubbish though).

 

[League Freak™]

I agree and Ive said as much on RLFans for a LONG time.

The RFL refuse to leave GB these days. They wont even take a train ride to France. I think that says a lot.


But the ARL DOES has full control over how the Kangaroo's are run. Myabe now who or where they play....but how they are run is under the ARL's control.


The things they can control....they stuff up on a regular basis.

 

[griff]

We have really sacrificed the standing of international RL in Aus in order to build it up in GB in the short term. And I think in doing that we have devalued its status in GB by playing there too often.

To start treating internationals seriously requires some balance and variety and a longer term cyclical approach. In the long term, this would be better for both Aus as well as GB.

 

[Kurt Angle]

GB is more responsbile for the degredation of their status than anyone else.

Not travelling to France is the biggest disgrace, and for the life of me I can't see their reasoning for declining.

It may not be the toughest opponent, but it is a hit-out to work on combinations, playing in a non-partisan atmosphere.

I think the split up of nations will end up being a good move. GB in essence is England + Brian Carney.

England will still continue to suit up against Austraia, with Wales, Ireland, Scotland providing competition for each other and opponents for other 2nd tier nations.

 

[screeny]

We have really sacrificed the standing of international RL in Aus in order to build it up in GB in the short term. And I think in doing that we have devalued its status in GB by playing there too often.

To start treating internationals seriously requires some balance and variety and a longer term cyclical approach. In the long term, this would be better for both Aus as well as GB.

But without the ARL's 'sacrifice' over the past few years i.e. going to Britain so much, then surely Australia would have been sacrificing a lot more - the entire int'l game.


By assisting GBRL in its five-year-long hour of need, since the WC, the ARL has done the int'l game a huge service.

 

[griff]

I think we could have gone there less often and played bigger games which would have achieved the same net result.

Ultimately though the standing of international RL in GB depends on the standing of international RL in Australia. By ignoring the health of international RL in Australia, in the longer run that has been/will be damaging to GB.

International RL in Australia is now so marginalised that when Copa posted in the NRL forum about who was going to the tri-nations match, amongst a few no's and maybes he got people saying they would like to go but couldn't afford to go overseas. Yes well it is in Sydney, just no one knows or cares because internationals have been treated so shoddily since 1996, when GB cancelled the Lions tour of Australia and went on a financially disastrous NZ only tour.

 

[screeny]

You may think that, but the fact is that the RFL considered itself a dead duck without the ARL in one particular year, and now after successful int'l years since 2005 the RFL is now in the black and able to fund initiatives such as the RLEF, Rudd's position, the ENC etc.

So the ARL's investment in int'l footy has some tangible benefit.

 

[griff]

I don't think the RFL were literally within sight of going under without the tour although Maurice Lindsay did say so. He would have said anything to get that tour back on. Fortunately he did get it back moving after the ARL had allowed ridiculously ill-informed players to scare themselves into not going, although unfortunately the traditional club games were cancelled.

The RFL did have only themselves to blame for their situation though after the RLWC 2000 debacle.

Now it is up to the RFL to return the favour and allow international RL in Australia to get back to where it was. All they need to do is move their 2008 season forward 2 weeks.

 

[League Freak™]

I would LOVE to know what Lindsay said.



Basically, that tour in 2001 was completely called off. The RFL were stuffed, the ARL didnt care.



Then Mo stepped in and made a phone call. Now, I dont know what he said....but the ARL soon got its ar$e into gear and sent a team over.